[quote="Listenup94":udtzhyhf]So when your working group was set up was it to work with the rugby club or as an alternative to them ?[/quote:udtzhyhf] Im not sure what you are getting at here, but the working group was formed to look at providing a not-for-profit solution for the stadium because there wasnt any other offering on the table and there was the risk of the council selling it to the highest bidder.

[quote="faxcar":lbsjn7rz]They who are they? If CMBC well they didn’t inform us either but some of us knew about it weeks in advance from sources inside the club unlike FC Town because they didn’t say anything to your group either. Just shows how much importance they put on working together and letting their own know then.[/quote:lbsjn7rz] They are whoever. If sources within 'the club' are leaking information, then thats their prerogative. Just shows how much importance who put on working together? There are, from what I believe, two options that will be on the table. What the working group are offering - an independent, not for profit option - and what Ken Davy is proposing.

[quote="Bubba":re0cctou]Im not sure what you are getting at here, but the working group was formed to look at providing a not-for-profit solution for the stadium because there wasnt any other offering on the table and there was the risk of the council selling it to the highest bidder.[/quote:re0cctou] Youve acknowledged that there was no obligation from the council to inform you of davys interest and you weren't aware of it till it was announced, is it possible that other options were made available to the council but by your own admission not revealed to your group?

[quote="Listenup94":3eprr9tg]Youve acknowledged that there was no obligation from the council to inform you of davys interest and you weren't aware of it till it was announced, is it possible that other options were made available to the council but by your own admission not revealed to your group?[/quote:3eprr9tg] Absolutely. But could we have risked doing nothing?

[quote="Bubba":27ugixi1]Absolutely. But could we have risked doing nothing?[/quote:27ugixi1] So in the run up to the 17th of March will their not be open dialogue with all the parties involved?

[quote="Listenup94":19xt1bpk]So in the run up to the 17th of March will their not be open dialogue with all the parties involved?[/quote:19xt1bpk] There will be discussions, yes.

[quote="Bubba":30wonei4]They are whoever. If sources within 'the club' are leaking information, then thats their prerogative. Just shows how much importance who put on working together? There are, from what I believe, two options that will be on the table. What the working group are offering - an independent, not for profit option - and what Ken Davy is proposing.[/quote:30wonei4] They’re leaking information! What confirming Ken Davy was showing some renewed interest in the Shay which had been doing the rounds for a while. I wasn’t aware there had been a media blackout imposed and and if as you claim there’s no obligation not to say anything there’s no obligation not to do so either especially the nature of it but as per usual you find some negative critical slant on things where the rugby club are involved.

[quote="Bubba":1xaf6nhs]There will be discussions, yes.[/quote:1xaf6nhs] With hoddie walking away from the sst on the grounds of not being in favour of 3rd party ownership and the other members remaining does that mean the working group are prepared to accept davys proposals providing certain provisions and covenants are in place to protect the shay and both halifax clubs ?

[quote="faxcar":3odj84l6]They’re leaking information! What confirming Ken Davy was showing some renewed interest in the Shay which had been doing the rounds for a while. I wasn’t aware there had been a media blackout imposed and and if as you claim there’s no obligation not to say anything there’s no obligation not to do so either especially the nature of it but as per usual you find some negative critical slant on things where the rugby club are involved.[/quote:3odj84l6] Blimey, a bit sensitive arent you. When you said you "knew about it weeks in advance from sources within the club", and there hadnt been anything official announced then I was guessing you meant you were told on the hush hush?

[quote="Listenup94":1tnuuks5]With hoddie walking away from the sst on the grounds of not being in favour of 3rd party ownership and the other members remaining does that mean the working group are prepared to accept davys proposals providing certain provisions and covenants are in place to protect the shay and both halifax clubs ?[/quote:1tnuuks5] We are approaching it in an open manner. As you say, the key is the security of the two clubs and the stadium and how that may be compatible with third party ownership. I am against private ownership given the risk of the stadium becoming a pawn at some point in the future. But there is nothing to be lost in gaining a greater understanding on what is on the table.

[quote="Bubba":1ukm5i82]Blimey, a bit sensitive arent you. When you said you "knew about it weeks in advance from sources within the club", and there hadnt been anything official announced then I was guessing you meant you were told on the hush hush?[/quote:1ukm5i82] Sensitive, quoting how you chose to describe something as leaked information on a guess that was wrong!

[quote="Bubba":18wtqudt]We are approaching it in an open manner. As you say, the key is the security of the two clubs and the stadium and how that may be compatible with third party ownership. I am against private ownership given the risk of the stadium becoming a pawn at some point in the future. But there is nothing to be lost in gaining a greater understanding on what is on the table.[/quote:18wtqudt] What's your interpretation/understanding of the ken davy loan situation?

[quote="Bubba":8pkvfzlc]We are approaching it in an open manner. As you say, the key is the security of the two clubs and the stadium and how that may be compatible with third party ownership. I am against private ownership given the risk of the stadium becoming a pawn at some point in the future. But there is nothing to be lost in gaining a greater understanding on what is on the table.[/quote:8pkvfzlc] What are your groups requirements for security of the stadium? Because whoever gets ownership / control over the Shay will not be able to do just what they want, apart from any covenants that get put in place without the council giving planning permission and permission for a change of use the owners will be able to do nothing, yes the clubs could lose out but so would any owner that doesn’t play ball with the local authority and tenants.

[quote="Listenup94":3q6nk4ex]What's your interpretation/understanding of the ken davy loan situation?[/quote:3q6nk4ex] Ive tried not to interpret it as yet. I obviously noted what was said in KD's interview with Matthew Shaw which probably needs further clarification.

[quote="faxcar":1bsecgc8]What are your groups requirements for security of the stadium? Because whoever gets ownership / control over the Shay will not be able to do just what they want, apart from any covenants that get put in place without the council giving planning permission and permission for a change of use the owners will be able to do nothing, yes the clubs could lose out but so would any owner that doesn’t play ball with the local authority and tenants.[/quote:1bsecgc8] Nothing formal as yet. I agree with you about planning permission and permission for a change of use, but thats not the only risk. The nearest example of what can go wrong is at Valley Parade going back to when Gordon Gibb (owner of Flamingo Land) owned the club. Simple version of what happened is he moved the stadium into his pension trust and then rented the stadium back to the club for a ridiculous rent. So hes earning a nice annual sum whilst holding the asset whilst also having nothing to do with the club. Theres plenty of other examples of what can go wrong under private ownership.

[quote="Bubba":1sdex6ml]Nothing formal as yet. I agree with you about planning permission and permission for a change of use, but thats not the only risk. The nearest example of what can go wrong is at Valley Parade going back to when Gordon Gibb (owner of Flamingo Land) owned the club. Simple version of what happened is he moved the stadium into his pension trust and then rented the stadium back to the club for a ridiculous rent. So hes earning a nice annual sum whilst holding the asset whilst also having nothing to do with the club. Theres plenty of other examples of what can go wrong under private ownership.[/quote:1sdex6ml] Wouldn't these kind of practices be covered by covenants?

[quote="Listenup94":126wv2mf]Wouldn't these kind of practices be covered by covenants?[/quote:126wv2mf] Unlikely.

[quote="Bubba":22dbbtte]Nothing formal as yet. I agree with you about planning permission and permission for a change of use, but thats not the only risk. The nearest example of what can go wrong is at Valley Parade going back to when Gordon Gibb (owner of Flamingo Land) owned the club. Simple version of what happened is he moved the stadium into his pension trust and then rented the stadium back to the club for a ridiculous rent. So hes earning a nice annual sum whilst holding the asset whilst also having nothing to do with the club. Theres plenty of other examples of what can go wrong under private ownership.[/quote:22dbbtte] Well if you haven’t got anything in place for the security of the clubs how can you have put in your proposal when it’s so important to you? And if Gordon Gibb or a doppelgänger tries that with Fax he’ll be disappointed because Fax don’t pay rent and knowing the stadium would eventually be sold, to warn then off in the best interests of both clubs is the real reason for them not doing so.

[quote="Bubba":jb47g95j]Unlikely.[/quote:jb47g95j] Strange , my understanding ( which of course could be wrong ) is that people associated with the rugby club were interested in the running of the shay but when davys proposal came through they acknowledged that getting the ground up to spec would accelerate that position and to protect themselves from the risks you've mentioned covenants have already been agreed.

[quote="Listenup94":1d161lwy]Strange , my understanding ( which of course could be wrong ) is that people associated with the rugby club were interested in the running of the shay but when davys proposal came through they acknowledged that getting the ground up to spec would accelerate that position and to protect themselves from the risks you've mentioned covenants have already been agreed.[/quote:1d161lwy] Not only that you have a group of supporters mentioning how important it is to them for securities to be in place for the future of the clubs at the Shay but at the time of submitting a proposal they haven’t decided what they are! Wouldn’t they think that the clubs themselves would want the same things in place and get things as watertight as possible? Sounds like any securities that include the Shaymen will be okay and any that don’t won’t be to me.

[quote="faxcar":2ywy9lty]Not only that you have a group of supporters mentioning how important it is to them for securities to be in place for the future of the clubs at the Shay but at the time of submitting a proposal they haven’t decided what they are! Wouldn’t they think that the clubs themselves would want the same things in place and get things as watertight as possible? Sounds like any securities that include the Shaymen will be okay and any that don’t won’t be to me.[/quote:2ywy9lty] I understand the anxieties to all involved and there is many unanswered questions, there is a handful of reasonable characters on shaymen.net but then there are some who are either blinded by historical hate or just plain thick to be polite. I can't speak for db and it must be frustrating having an owner who is moreorless mute. I can only speak for the information I have which is obviously rugby based and I would be very shocked if they entered into an agreement which jeopardised the future of the club . Having said that the power players are the council and davy so anything is possible.

[quote="Listenup94":186ilc09]I understand the anxieties to all involved and there is many unanswered questions, there is a handful of reasonable characters on shaymen.net but then there are some who are either blinded by historical hate or just plain thick to be polite. I can't speak for db and it must be frustrating having an owner who is moreorless mute. I can only speak for the information I have which is obviously rugby based and I would be very shocked if they entered into an agreement which jeopardised the future of the club . Having said that the power players are the council and davy so anything is possible.[/quote:186ilc09] Spending far to much time debating it and what will be will be.

[quote="faxcar":2hgedvb5]Spending far to much time debating it and what will be will be.[/quote:2hgedvb5] Understandable as sadly this is just about the first subject that's provoked any interest with supporters for about 4 months!